Morrow et al v. City of San Diego, et al
| Floyd L. Morrow and Marlene Morrow |
| San Diego, City of, Mandel E. Himelstein and DOES 1-100 |
| 3:2011cv01497 |
| July 6, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of California |
| San Diego Office |
| San Diego |
| Irma E. Gonzalez |
| William V. Gallo |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
148
ORDER denying City of San Diego's 146 Motion to Dismiss and 146 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/5/2017. (jah)
|
|
Filing
141
ORDER granting 137 Motion for Determination of Discovery Dispute Re Special Interrogatories. Plaintiffs shall provide defendant with full and complete responses to defendant's Special Interrogatory Nos. 1 through 14 within 15 days of the date this Order is filed. Defendant's request for monetary sanctions is denied at this time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen S. Crawford on 3/24/2017. (jah)
|
|
Filing
99
ORDER Denying 80 Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend; Denying 84 Plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute Party Doe 1, Doe 2, and Doe 3; and Denying 95 Plaintiffs' Motion for Sanctions Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 12/4/2013. (srm)(jrd)
|
|
Filing
61
ORDER granting City of San Diego's 51 Motion for Abstention. Court denies Dft's motion for abstention on basis of the Younger doctrine and grants Dft's motion for abstention on the basis of the Pullman doctrine. Court remands the ca se to San Diego County Superior Court. Court retains jurisdiction Plaintiffs' federal claim, if Plaintiffs', in the state court proceeding make an England "reservation", England 375 U.S. at 421, and such claim is not mooted in the state court proceeding. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 9/25/2012. (Certified copy of this Order mailed to San Diego County Superior Court) (jah)
|
|
Filing
46
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 40 Motion to Amend and Supplement Third Amended Complaint. Court grants Plaintiffs leave to amend their existing claims, but denies Plaintiffs leave to add a new claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pla may file a fourth amended complaint deleting the IIED claim w/in 14 days of the date this Order is filed. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 7/6/2012. (jah)
|
|
Filing
30
ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendant City of San Diego's 24 Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint. Court: 1. declines to dismiss the 1st cause of action for waste of taxpayer funds, 2. dismisses with prejudice 2nd cause of action to extent it is based on violation of Plaintiffs' due process rights, 3. declines to dismiss 2nd cause of action to extent it is based on violations of Plaintiffs' equal protection rights, 4. dismisses without prejudice 3rd cause of action for inverse condemnation as unripe, 5. dismisses with prejudice 4th cause of action for invalidation, 6. declines to dismiss 5th cause of action for writ of mandate, and 7. delciens to dismiss 6th cause of action for writ of prohibition. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 1/11/2012. (jah)
|
|
Filing
20
ORDER granting Defendant City of San Diego's 9 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint. Court dismisses with prejudice Plaintiffs' claim for violation of the excessive fines clause and dismisses without prejudice Plaintiffs' remaining claims. Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 20 calendar days from the date of this Order. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 10/18/2011. (jah)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
